Delhi must not let Dhaka’s political turmoil hit economic ties
One of the most significant features of India’s relations with its South Asian neighbours has been its close relations with Bangladesh, ever since the country was born out of the India-Pakistan war of 1971. Western economists have claimed since the 1970s that Bangladesh was destined to be an ‘international economic basket case’, forever dependent on foreign assistance. The economic performance of Bangladesh has, however, been far superior to that of Pakistan. Its annual economic growth rate over the past two years, during the rule of Sheikh Hasina, was around 6 per cent. Pakistan grew by 2.38 per cent in 2023.
What has emerged is that, contrary to popular belief, Hasina and her government performed well in enhancing the growth of the Bangladeshi economy. Contrary to Western propaganda, it is Pakistan, and not Bangladesh, which has become an ‘international basket case’, excessively dependent on foreign aid. With the Afghanistan conflict having ended, Pakistan cannot continue with its pretensions of being a crucially important power, controlling strategic equations across the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.
These are important factors that should be kept in mind while analysing the developments in Bangladesh. It appears clear that in recent days, the ‘regime change’ to oust Hasina was for political reasons, in which Pakistan evidently had an interest. Pakistan, however, does not have the resources, or strategic reach to execute such actions. Its primary emphasis has been on cosying up to Islamist organisations in Bangladesh. Such ‘assistance’ would naturally be dominated by resorting to religious fundamentalism and what Pakistan’s establishment describes as ‘radical Islam’. Pakistan has, after all, done nothing to contribute economically to any country anywhere. It has not provided any economic assistance, even for the welfare of the people of its northern neighbour, Afghanistan, despite having interfered in Afghanistan’s internal affairs.
Given its precarious economic situation, Bangladesh understands that it is wise to avoid creating complications or tensions in relations with its neighbours.
Both the interim government’s chief adviser, Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, and the army chief, Gen Waker-Uz-Zaman, have more than enough problems getting their house in order. They will, hopefully, be careful not to permit violence or terrorism across the country’s borders. It is, however, no secret that the 84-year-old Yunus has a long history of good relations with successive American governments, dating back to the days of the Bill Clinton administration. He also has close ties with the British establishment. He has made a notable contribution to the agricultural sector in Bangladesh by promoting the provision of microcredit for small farmers. It would be useful for India to continue and indeed expand trade, economic and people-to-people contacts with Dhaka. Economic and trade ties need to be fully restored as soon as possible. There have been growing linkages between Bangladeshi and Indian business houses for meeting Dhaka’s requirements for its export-oriented textile industry; these should be strengthened.
The relations that Bangladesh has with the outside world are inextricably linked to its historical experiences since its birth in December 1971. There have also been concerns that there could be problems with maritime access, with China’s growing interest in strengthening its ties with both the new dispensation in Bangladesh and in continuing its policies to obtain bases in neighbouring Myanmar. India has, therefore, been taking a keen interest in strengthening communication links with both Myanmar and Bangladesh through projects like the jointly constructed Sittwe port (Myanmar), located in the Bay of Bengal. Moreover, it would be worthwhile to consider a framework of trilateral maritime cooperation between India, Bangladesh and Myanmar, particularly in communications and trade. It needs to be borne in mind that China has, for long, sought assured maritime access to and through the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea to the oil-rich Arab states of the Persian Gulf and beyond. Maintaining assured access and berthing facilities through the Bay of Bengal is important for Beijing to fulfil its larger strategic aspirations. Such access is now available to China only in Pakistan’s Gwadar port. It remains to be seen how Yunus would respond to Chinese maritime ambitions.
The Bangladesh military has played a key role in the exit and exile of Hasina to India. It is obvious that Hasina feared for her life before she fled to India. It was only appropriate for India to have responded positively and provide a safe haven. In the meantime, Prime Minister Modi received a call from Yunus, assuring him about the safety of Hindus and other minority groups in Bangladesh. This is an issue about which Modi expressed serious concern earlier. It is, however, clear that Gen Waker-Uz-Zaman has played a key role in this matter. He is calling the shots from behind the scenes. In the meantime, it appears that Yunus also has prime ministerial ambitions. He seems to be well positioned in strengthening ties with the Western powers, including the US and UK.
While India stayed away from any involvement in the internal affairs of Bangladesh, it was evident that the Hasina government had lost public confidence. While the military establishment stayed out of political controversy, it had no interest in bailing out a distinctly unpopular Hasina. But, as far as India is concerned, Hasina has been a good friend who has sought refuge, which India has provided.
In these circumstances, it is only natural that India returns, in due course, to resume normal diplomatic activity and economic cooperation with Bangladesh while flatly declining to undertake extradition of Hasina from its soil. India is, after all, not a country that lets down those who have been its longtime friends.
